Its easy to go back and forth on this one and I'm pretty sure there is no right answer. given proper placement .223 will drop a target on sight, but perfect aim happens rarely in real life. You end up trading stopping power for increased weight if you move to a .308 platform. The weight of ammo and the weapon will usually be higher after this transition. For me the biggest downside to .308 is game collection, it is simply too big a bullet to harvest small game wile something like an AR can run .223 or even .22 lr with a simple conversion kit.

My suggestion would be to try on different weapons and see which on you prefer, let the weapon and the situation in which you will be using it guide you decision.

Shot placement is everything. Speed is everything. Anything past this is minimal. This is my opinion why virtually all militaries in the world stepped down in caliber after WWII. Lighter recoil ensures less flinching and a quicker recovery time to get the rifle back on sights for a repeat shot.

The smaller bore also affords more practice. I see a good bunch of .308 rifles at the range, but the 5.56 or others like it get a lot more rounds sent through them. The caliber does not make up for skill.

Military ammunition can leave much to be desired. When purchasing your own ammunition, you have options. Pick the right bullet for the right job.

As far as range goes. Don't be too focused on this. Situations most folks envision are very short range. Likely well with-in pistol or shotgun ranges.

Also, consider not the weight of the ammo, but really the weight of the rifle. If it weighs too much, it gets slung on the shoulder and not kept in your hands. An extra second or two may not be an option. Thats why a lot of bird hunter purchase a 20 gauge rather than a heavier 12 gauge shotgun, even thoug hthe 12 gauge offers better results.

With an experienced shooter, 7.62 National Match NATO ammo, a good M-1A and a scope zeroed to the ammo, shooter and rifle, it is not hard for somebody to be able to repeatedly hit a silouhette target at 750 meters about 95% of the time.

With an M-4 type carbine you can get about 550 meters from the .223 caliber ammo and such.

One of the things people fail to understand is that tactics play a HUGE part in making any rifle or firearms system effectively work for the user. Obviously the closer a shooter gets to his target the higher his percentage of hits will be. So if a user understands this idea, then he can make any of his firearms more effective by just getting closer and closer. If you keep getting closer and closer then eventually you lose the luxury or comfort of being able to shoot a long distance to hit your target. So the thing that you next have to understand is that there are trade-offs when you talk tactics. In other words, a shooter needs to have common sense, know his firearm, practice frequently with it and develop tatics which enhance his survival program or survival chances.

This is why some people have chosen a 7.62 X 39 AK-47 type rifle to use as their firearm of choice. They have decided to use a rifle that uses a medium weight bullet that has really good penetration abilities and they've adopted their tactics to revolve around the shorter useful distance that the round forces them to employ. You see, the AK-47 type rifle only lets a user have about 300 to 350 meters of range because of design characteristics of the round. And these AK shooters are happy with their rifles because they've adopted their tactics to meet their needs and what their rifles can do for them. So tactics can be almost as important as any other part of the rifle scenario.

The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Herd Sniper For This Useful Post:

I have been on many forums and seen this debate come about. One thing I have learned is that people get very caught up on the debate of 5.56mm effectiveness at distances greater than 500m.

Still to this day I have not met one person who would be okay with being hit by a 5.56mm at a distance greater than 500m. There are more considerations to take into this debate than merely just the bullet caliber and ballistics. What grain bullet you are shooting, your skill level and your firearms configuration all matter greatly. The variables are endless. Both rounds are 100% capable of doing any job the shooter is qualified for.

The most important factor into picking a rifle that is right for you is to become familiar with them both and choose the one you have confidence in. I shoot both .308 rifles and 5.56mm rifles on an almost daily basis and have extreme confidence in each. Knowing your ballistics and improving your skills are the most important factors.

On a soft target a 5.56mm at almost any distance will provide a devastating effect.

This is the inane argument ever. Nobody would be okay with being hit by a marble >500m either, but you don't see many choosing them for a weapon of choice.

I'd guess that the ballistic coefficient of a marble wouldn't allow it to fly 500m. My point was merely that if you hit a target with a bullet moving at any rate of speed fast enough to penetrate flesh (which isn't very much) is going to wound your target and disable them if not kill them. (That is where shot placement comes into play).

P.S. The quotes "Still to this day I have not met one person who would be okay with being hit by a 5.56mm at a distance greater than 500m." and "I'd guess that the ballistic coefficient of a marble wouldn't allow it to fly 500m."

Were merely just pure "fun" comments, no seriousness or real "argument" was meant to be taken from it. Seriously, you hit a soft target with either round, it's going to hurt quite badly.